The appearance of truth is good enough for me. The author has done his best to construct a truthy-sounding argument, so why shouldn't I believe it? Who has time to check facts, today?

I used to read a lot of newspapers, books, and magazines to find out what was going on, but it's a lot easier to just listen to AM talk radio, where the hosts have done all the reading for me and can tell me what is true.

And if these brainy scientists are making up stuff about genes, they're probably making up all that stuff about climate change, too.

No, Genotopia, we thank you for offering a ray of hope! David, I think it's more like the LMAO gene! :D Baydog - done! - there's a spam filter & you'll get a snippy little email from a machine somewhere but if you just say something like "It's Baydog" in the reference line I'll see it. I'm dreadfully confused, btw, about when the honor of the naming of the art of cooking meat over a bed of coals got taken away from the French. I had always heard the "barbe a queue" think stated fairly confidently - but Wikipedia is always right so the guy who said "Take your pick. We don't know" must be less-truthy.